Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.

Personally, I'm stunned that this discussion has gone on for two pages as I can't for the life of me parse even one of Gary's ID sentences. More power to those of you who have better abstract analysis skills and infinite patience.

ETA: Clarification

Edited by Robin on Nov. 02 2012,10:02

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.

Personally, I'm stunned that this discussion has gone on for two pages as I can't for the life of me parse even one of Gary's ID sentences. More power to those of you who have better abstract analysis skills and infinite patience.

ETA: Clarification

It's just a more caffienated version of the usual ID spiel - a mash-up of sciency-sounding jargon, which reduces to "looks designed to me".

The "I can model it with a computer program, therefore ID" argument is, well, a little special, in much the same way that Joe's "cake recipe" argument was.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.

So you are able to comment on their "work" when it suits you, but when pressed you don't know what it is you are supporting.

Quality.

Quote

But I did notice they kinda have their own thread in this forum too, and it's almost 2/3rd of the way to a million hits!

I'm sorry, I missed the relevance of that to my question?

Quote

I knew the UD site did not have a science worthy theory yet, and drove some at the ARN forum nuts by being honest about their not having a theory together there either.

So you know that UD has no science worthy theory yet at the same time The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way ?

If they don't have a theory, how can the science be going their way?

Quote

Now there is Chromosomal Adam and Eve taking a respectable place in science.

You believe this somehow supports Creationism or Intelligent Design?

How? Be specific!

Quote

Dust/clay is now vital to know about in origin of life.

Except it's not in relation to ID, is it? I'm sure your deity could have made humans out of glass and peanuts had it so chose.

Quote

I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".

Then please do so, as that was in fact the question that I asked.

As yet you've given a few examples of what "creationists" like to use in support of their case but we both know that "Chromosomal Adam and Eve" have nothing to do with their Biblical namesakes, and that by "Dust/clay" you are referencing the biblical god.

If it turns out the origin of life depends on light (which of course it will at some level) then to you that'll be "proof" that the bible was right all along because it mentions the word "light".

So your evidence fades away like some much a thing that fades quickly.

To quickly sum up what is most important to myself and all others including JoeG (who I at least know is catching up to Kathy Martin's record amount of ridicule) here's more culture change for your speakers too:

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

You can say what you want about the science in the theory not being a big deal scientifically anymore. I already knew that. Real scientific change that once we once could only dream about, is no longer something hoped for that might happen, it already did.

I know what it's like to suffer for a theory like this. And I knew that Kathy and others (who I did know well enough to be able to relate to their novel scientific problem) got into more than they thought and were shocked by the "scientists" boycotting the hearing. Then came the gnawing question of why they just threw mud at it then ran. But as it now stands, the computer model and theory that is at Planet Source Code is example of what happens when one doesn't run away like that. The experience has even made the Kansas Public Schools ahead of the curve in self-assembly and more, that makes for model school material. Not even Jack Krebs minds that happening, especially since there would not have been the KCFS forum without him and deserves credit for the good that ultimately came from his hard work too. He also needed professor Joe Meert and others who helped keep it academic to stay in the battle after the hearing via the KCFS forum. So with all said, none on the ground in Kansas wanted to be abandoned by scientists. And in hindsight what Kathy and others in the "minority" were trying to describe that needed some patience to fully understand was not a good idea to abandon either. Unless of course you don't mind doing what we want while Jack just gets nervous from all the IDeas I could not help but gave the other side.

Creationists in Kansas and elsewhere are likely a part of the reason the Genesis-friendly science that you consider no big deal scientifically is now understood as being no big deal anymore. That's how the creationist strategy here works. What works for them in the classroom is rightly made a non-issue by making sure it gets taught. They themselves get to introduce it too or explain to teacher, not someone also representing the Atheist movement or other motivator to be one up on their competition in science that is not even in the classroom yet. That's the kind of progress I see happening in Creationism country that I know, the kind that you can do nothing to stop.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

Gary,Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about. It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Gary, it's very tiring to try to figure out what your incoherent comments actually mean. I strongly suggest that you should greatly improve your communication efforts if you want to be understood.

Personally, I'm stunned that this discussion has gone on for two pages as I can't for the life of me parse even one of Gary's ID sentences. More power to those of you who have better abstract analysis skills and infinite patience.

ETA: Clarification

It's just a more caffienated version of the usual ID spiel - a mash-up of sciency-sounding jargon, which reduces to "looks designed to me".

The "I can model it with a computer program, therefore ID" argument is, well, a little special, in much the same way that Joe's "cake recipe" argument was.

Thanks John. I kind of got that gist in general. I'm just saying that I have no ability to engage his ID arguments in specific because I'm exhausted by the time I get through any of them. Take this sentence:

Quote

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

I'm ok all the way through "absurd". But the sentence keeps going and it's a quagmire. "...since even where confirmed..." (huh?) "...by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms..."(finding more EAs? I really don't think that's what you mean, but I'm not sure what you are really thinking here) "would still "evolve"..." (wait...what? Something's missing there. A thought? A word? A few words?) "...and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny." I don't even think he meant that last part the way he wrote it. I think he meant that more EAs would lead to articles and papers that scientifically explain the new found evidence, but it's hard for me to know.

Basically, after reading a few of his posts, I've given up any hope of actually discussing what Gary is trying to get across. But you all seem to be doing a fine job, so I'm just going to sit on the sidelines munching popcorn.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

Gary,Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about. It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

Gary,Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about. It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?

It's your "theory". You tell us, if you can.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

Gary,Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about. It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?

Now I have no idea what your questions have to do with my observations, except perhaps to demonstrate that the problem is your apparent inability to maintain a linear discussion.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Thanks John. I kind of got that gist in general. I'm just saying that I have no ability to engage his ID arguments in specific because I'm exhausted by the time I get through any of them. Take this sentence:

Quote

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

If you only want to engage what I said are worn out philosophical arguments instead of science then it's best that you do not ever expect that from me anyway.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry". Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet. Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.

Gary,Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about. It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?

Now I have no idea what your questions have to do with my observations, except perhaps to demonstrate that the problem is your apparent inability to maintain a linear discussion.

You did not study the theory, correct?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

I'm ok all the way through "absurd". But the sentence keeps going and it's a quagmire. "...since even where confirmed..." (huh?) "...by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms..."(finding more EAs? I really don't think that's what you mean, but I'm not sure what you are really thinking here) "would still "evolve"..." (wait...what? Something's missing there. A thought? A word? A few words?) "...and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny." I don't even think he meant that last part the way he wrote it. I think he meant that more EAs would lead to articles and papers that scientifically explain the new found evidence, but it's hard for me to know.

Basically, after reading a few of his posts, I've given up any hope of actually discussing what Gary is trying to get across. But you all seem to be doing a fine job, so I'm just going to sit on the sidelines munching popcorn.

Hey, at least you quoted the whole sentence instead of taking the juiciest part to munch on all by itself. In my book, that's progress too, even where it looks like a mess to you.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more, Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...

You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If you only want to engage what I said are worn out philosophical arguments instead of science then it's best that you do not ever expect that from me anyway.

Since you directed your post to me Gary, I'm going to try and parse it and see if I can respond.

Let's see:

Quote

If you only want to engage what I said [and] are worn out [by] philosophical arguments[,] instead of [while engaging] science [scientific arguments,] then it's best that you do not [n]ever expect that from me [to address only science] anyway.

Hmm...assuming I got the gist of what you were going for, rewritten this would be:

Quote

If you are only interested in engaging me if I focus on scientific arguments because you do not understand my philosophical arguments, you likely won't enjoy discussing what I say because I won't focus only on science.

Ehh...that might be close. Who knows?

See Gary, that's the whole point. My complaint has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with syntax. I don't know what you are actually trying to communicate. As I stated, I can get the gist, but getting the gist does not actually allow for direct, linear communication. I can't get into the details of what you are trying to convey so I can't appreciate your concepts on any deeper levels.

So Gary, I'm happy that you think you presenting some philosophical conceptual framework or whatever, but since I can't quite parse the nitty-gritty of said philosophical argument, let alone how it applies in any way to science, I can't exactly ask any questions about your concept or analyze it, let alone use it.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...

You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.

Yes please do, if you wish, operationally define "intelligently designed and how it can be different from "designed by nature". I'm sure your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing makes a clear destinction. It would be just fine if you use your definitions and simply answer yes/no to the questions above.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

I'm ok all the way through "absurd". But the sentence keeps going and it's a quagmire. "...since even where confirmed..." (huh?) "...by finding more Evolutionary Algorithms..."(finding more EAs? I really don't think that's what you mean, but I'm not sure what you are really thinking here) "would still "evolve"..." (wait...what? Something's missing there. A thought? A word? A few words?) "...and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny." I don't even think he meant that last part the way he wrote it. I think he meant that more EAs would lead to articles and papers that scientifically explain the new found evidence, but it's hard for me to know.

Basically, after reading a few of his posts, I've given up any hope of actually discussing what Gary is trying to get across. But you all seem to be doing a fine job, so I'm just going to sit on the sidelines munching popcorn.

Hey, at least you quoted the whole sentence instead of taking the juiciest part to munch on all by itself. In my book, that's progress too, even where it looks like a mess to you.

Well, like I said, I tried.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis